On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 07:20:00PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Fine, whatever, given this is a requirement no other package seems to > > have, I'm disinclined to contribute further. Congrats. Also, I think > > That's a fair point. Would you suggest we stick with a model that > stuff gets put in and we figure out why later if it breaks or why we > added it? I'm not asking that sarcastically. My goal is to improve > things, not make them worse for arbitrary reasons. > Given there's a limited subset of people who can trigger builds, I'd be happy to see something more ``professional.'' But only if there's accountability. If people could submit patches to patchwork or something, and monitor their status, versus just getting an OK to commit on a mailing list with no guarantee of feedback, I think that would go along way. Also the kernel ACL should probably be cleaned up. ;-) I'd be happy to give up commit permissions if there was some accountable system in place beyond just begging for ACKs. > > documenting fixes to your patches beyond the %changelog is a waste of my > > %changelog is pretty limited. Works great for bug numbers, kinda crap > for everything else. > No, but it does what you asked for, describes why something is there. Justifying why some random patch that's been in the tree more than six years isn't the job of my changelog entry, saying what I did was. And given git makes it trivial to see all the changes (the config addition, the .patch change, and the %changelog entry...) --Kyle _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
